|
|
phantastisch
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2271
Merit: 1363
|
 |
February 26, 2013, 01:51:35 PM |
|
It would have tried to send me back coins to lkalskdjasdasdasf , i'm not sure if this is an address though..
|
|
|
|
|
hamdi (OP)
|
|
February 26, 2013, 01:53:37 PM |
|
well, there is no address-validity check in it yet.
right now the plain function is there.
more advanced features like
*) multiple back-addresses
*) fragmented back-sending
*) delayed back-sending
etc.
are in the works.
|
|
|
|
|
🏰 TradeFortress 🏰
Bitcoin Veteran
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
|
|
February 26, 2013, 01:56:04 PM |
|
Shady as hell is my first impression.
Are you calculating taint? What is the source of the coins? Etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hamdi (OP)
|
|
February 26, 2013, 01:58:29 PM |
|
coins are from different rotating hot-wallets of established big services, so the coins mix well.
give it a try with 0.02 or more.
|
|
|
|
|
🏰 TradeFortress 🏰
Bitcoin Veteran
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
|
|
February 26, 2013, 01:59:58 PM |
|
No thanks, I don't actually need any coin mixing plus this is pretty shady. Who knows if you're going to run with 1 or 10 or 100 BTC..
|
|
|
|
|
|
hamdi (OP)
|
|
February 26, 2013, 02:02:10 PM |
|
well, thats your opinion.
this is just a field-test of my script, which will later run on my customers server under his brandname and a "real" design.
|
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
February 26, 2013, 02:07:30 PM |
|
well, thats your opinion. I could be wrong about this, but I don't think that's the most effective way to reassure potential customers that you're not going to run off with their Bitcoins like an uncountable number of similar ventures have in the past. |
|
|
|
|
|
hamdi (OP)
|
|
February 26, 2013, 02:32:44 PM |
|
As stated i do not plan to run this myself in the long run.
I only create it and let you guys test it.
If you check my post history you can get a bit of a picture of me.
|
|
|
|
|
poly
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
Weighted companion cube
|
|
February 27, 2013, 05:13:19 AM |
|
Would you be interested in giving me a test mix? I can analyze the taint and anonymity of this mixer. PM me if you are interested.
|
|
|
|
|
hamdi (OP)
|
|
February 27, 2013, 11:21:07 AM |
|
sure, simply test it with 0.02 BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
poly
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
Weighted companion cube
|
|
February 27, 2013, 11:49:50 AM |
|
sure, simply test it with 0.02 BTC.
I'll be losing out 50% on fees, you should work on address validation (it's not hard). At least you're sanitizing user input. |
|
|
|
|
hamdi (OP)
|
|
February 27, 2013, 12:02:25 PM |
|
addr's are now checked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hamdi (OP)
|
|
February 27, 2013, 10:29:23 PM |
|
seems nobody needs this. taken offline. my own tests worked out well,
|
|
|
|
|
matthewh3
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1003
|
 |
February 27, 2013, 10:31:36 PM |
|
seems nobody needs this. taken offline. my own tests worked out well,
Now that Blockchain.info have stopped the anonymous tx option with wallets accesed (only) through tor (from like today) I can see a massive market for a new cheap mixer  |
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
March 02, 2013, 02:10:37 PM |
|
seems nobody needs this. taken offline. my own tests worked out well,
Now that Blockchain.info have stopped the anonymous tx option with wallets accesed (only) through tor (from like today) I can see a massive market for a new cheap mixer Whoa, seriously? That got amazingly little press. Seems a lot more important a development than CoinScam's deluded prevarications in the grand scheme of things. |
|
|
|
|
